![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article
Battle of Kherson you nominated as a
good article has failed ; see
Talk:Battle of Kherson for reasons why
the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Amitchell125 --
Amitchell125 (
talk)
07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, you recently added an edit where you made a claim that 3 Jordanians were killed, with a citation by twitter accout "VisegrƔd 24". However, on the article for that account, it says that they post misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war, and thus it is not a reliable or good source to use and that claim has no source to back it up. Please remove it as I have already done so once. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 03:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that you
often edit without using an
edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in
your preferences. Thanks!
Stefen Towers among the rest!
Gab ā¢
Gruntwerk
06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.BilledMammal ( talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm considering writing a sort article for the Signpost about contributing to (English) Wikisource, which I've been doing on and off since this January. Since you're another Wikipedian who recently joined that project, I wondered if you would like to say a few words about your experiences getting started on Wikisource (learning curve, pros, cons, anything really). No worries if you don't want to. Cheers, Cremastra ( talk) 14:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
TylerBurden (
talk)
16:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as The Peopleās University for Palestine, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for 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. Josethewikier ( talk) 14:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey sorry I haven't participated in the discussion as much, I got bogged down with work and life stuff. So anyway, I'm a bit confused about what the current status is for EF2 tornadoes that don't hurt anyone. Are we just doing the "soft" case-by-case approach where we just discuss it when it happens, and reach a consensus for each individual instance? The discussion has become so long-winded and convoluted I can't really make heads or tails of where things currently stand. Can you give me a "dumbed down" summary of what the current agreement is when it comes to no-injury EF2s? TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 15:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 16:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
| Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Tornadoes of 2023 at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with GA and all the best, Mini apolis 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
Hi there WeatherWriter, I'm glad to be of assistance in helping you get a featured article.
After hitting Montgomery, the tornado struck Chisholm, Alabama, where it caused catastrophic damage. Thirty homes were completely swept away in Chisholm. All the fatalities from this tornado occurred in 15 homes within a 20-block radius.That is all the information about those exact deaths as well from Grazulis, U.S. Weather Bureau, and Rich Thomas.
So that's a lot right off the bat. I wonder if the FAC was perhaps a bit premature, but I don't want to tell you what not to do. Let me know if you have questions. ā« Hurricanehink ( talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The photo that keeps getting added to the Sulphur section is NOT a confirmed photo of the Sulphur tornado. There actually isn't a single source saying it is from Sulphur, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it is. The one you posted claims it was taken near the town of Byng, Oklahoma, and yet I found two more instances of the pic posted that same night, claiming to be from Ardmore, Oklahoma (shared below). If it was taken near Byng though, it would mean it is more likely a photo of the Holdenville EF3, as that town is closer to Byng than Sulphur. In any case, this all way too speculative for Wikipedia and we have no way of knowing where this photo was actually taken, and we shouldn't be having this issue to begin with, because we aren't supposed to pull random pics from social media that we cannot 100% verify. We can't just guess and hope we get it right, so stick with pics from the DAT or the NWS. We are going to get misattributed photos and false info published if we aren't more careful. Now if we find proof that this photo is from Sulphur, we can add it back, but for now it is a random unverifiable photo from social media that shouldn't have been added in the first place.
PROOF: 1.) https://twitter.com/dylantbrown/status/1784433337823621608 2.) https://twitter.com/JeffreyMHough1/status/1784555615013990792 3.) https://twitter.com/NeckerZak/status/1784421774563631487
TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 05:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
Thanks for uploading File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
You withdrew your RM (requested move) at Talk:List of tornado outbreaks by outbreak intensity score, but then you keep capping it. I've undone that. Let's discuss more if you don't see how MOS:CAPS applies here. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
And for a topic that's not yet likely to pass WP:Notability, you're sure playing it up. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
|
The Multiple Barnstar | |||||||
I've never done this before, so this template took way too long to get right. All I want to say is:
1. You are an amazing helper all-around. I've met some good people, some bad people, but you are definitely one of the friendliest. Without hesitation, you helped me heavily on 1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado, which did not go unnoticed. Thanks so much!Ā :) 2. You know the rules better than anyone else. I've seen it time and time again, where you will correct somebody's mistake (or mine), link them to a "WP:" and explain what happened. It's a very good way to connect with others without angering them, and I salute you for that. Thanks again! :D MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
Also to add a note on the Jarrell deletion discussion, everything that was mentioned under reasoning has been fixed and rewrote. Feel free to delete this portion of the message if you'd likeĀ :) MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, I just wanted to remind you about the FAC you asked me to help withĀ ;) ā« Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
You work so hard on your edits and I'm sure that you have made a change to the knowledge widely available by the public. <3 /plat
.allthefauna (
talk)
03:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi WeatherWriter, I see you started Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960ā1969) in September 2022, and last made some very minor edits in September 2023. As a Brit, this is not a subject I know anything about, but is there any reason this has not, or should not, be published? Best wishes - Arjayay ( talk) 10:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The format
parameter in citation templates such as {{
cite web}} refer to the File format of the work referred to by url; for example: DOC or XLS; displayed in parentheses after title.
They are not meant to encode information about the type of medium like a
press release (e.g.,
your edit here). Use the type
(or medium
) parameter for that information. ā
TheAustinMan(
Talk ā¬©
Edits)
16:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed your additions of the "Primary source inline" template in 2024 in climate change. Your explanation is that links to original studies "acts more as a self-published sources, not a secondary reliable source."
However, in cases of scientific studies, it's actually best to link directly to the study as a primary source rather than depend on a secondary source's interpretation; see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. This is why I think your primary/secondary distinction is misplaced. If, on the other hand, your actual concern is about the reliability of the source or study--that's why I try to always state the source in article text, to place the source in context.
Can you reconsider those templates? Thanks. ā RCraig09 ( talk) 17:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
(CONTENT)[1], with [1] being the primary source, it should be
(CONTENT)[1][2], with [1] being the current/primary/self-published sources and [2] being a secondary source to back up the primary source. That is why the "non-primary source needed" templates were added. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources(bolding my doing). Even if it is from a well regarded expert or expert organization, if the study in question is notable, someone is bound to talk about it in a secondary reliable source. I would say after a month after primary source publication, if a secondary reliable source isn't found, then I would honestly remove it as being not-notable for the content in the article, especially since all of the things I tag do fall under SPS. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
19 March: "The climate crisis is the defining challenge that humanity faces." āProf. Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, in State of the Climate 2023.[1]
5 February: a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences proposed adding a "Category 6" to the SaffirāSimpson hurricane wind scale to adequately convey storms' risk to the public, the researchers noting a number of storms have already achieved that intensity.[2]
References
almost all the entries I've made have been discovered by reading general news sources that quote scientific journals that they link." If that is true, then someone else says that the report is important; "someone else" being whatever general news source you found mentioning it. All I am asking is that if it is a self-published source, meaning if the author affiliation is the same as the website and/or publisher, then also tag along the news source citation. If it is from a peer-reviewed journal, no additional sources is needed. I think that summarizes all the points into a neat "too-long, didn't read" format. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 05:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Please IGNORE the | discussion linked here that I started because I did not know this at the time; but I started a discussion on the wrong file. Please direct any comments on the dead man walking tornado to the actual deletion discussion | linked here. And also, please ignore my struck out comments on that discussion. Apparently I didnāt know until just now that there were TWO pictures taken in the exact same spot, by the exact same person, and presumably by the exact same camera. Just at different times. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Thumbnail for Poison.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
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. Weāve only gotten down to 2020 (for completely listed) and if I recall, the entries only go back to 2019. Thereās still a lot more in IEM archives. Your help at expanding the list to mainspace ready format would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Lincoln, NE EF3 tornado.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
|
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:2023 Grindavik eruption.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
02:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
|
In case you had forgotten, there was a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_February_27#File:Poison_Song_Cover_Image.jpeg regarding using Hazbin Hotel video thumbnails as cover artworks in which the consensus was to not use them as cover artworks. You even acknowledged the consensus and restored the thumbnail over an actual Spotify cover artwork of a remix. It does not matter if you use image=, which is an alias of cover=, or that other editors restored the image to the infobox on the other articlesāsince you have these articles watchlisted and you know consensus disapproves, you should have reverted the editors doing so and pointed them to the consensus. @ Sergecross73: as an admin involved in that discussion. Ss 112 03:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
the songs do not have individual covers". By reverting my change, you restored content from an editor who directly claimed the image you restored was the "cover". So please, do not accuse me without getting your facts straight. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I also find it funny how you only messaged me and not the editor who added the image to the infobox in the first place, the IP editor who added the image back to the infobox on "Poison" hasn't edited in close to a month. There would be no point because they've probably moved to a different IP and wouldn't see it. But speaking of doing one's research, I don't think you did yours: I did message the user who restored the thumbnail to the infobox on the other three Hazbin Hotel song articles: see here. Ss 112 04:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
This whole mess about the current storm section seems to have started because you wanted to make sure things were properly cited. I have to applaud that effort, since that seems to be where the current consensus is, that there shouldnāt be external links, especially when we can easily cite things with an actual reference! So Iām sorry if things got heated, and perhaps I wasnāt the most level-headed. Tbh, thereās a heat wave where I am today, so I probably spent too much time today rushing to add to the discussions. So cheers to your efforts trying to make this website a better place. We need more people like you. Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 22:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandalism of Stonehenge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.GenevieveDEon ( talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to climate change, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipediaās norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 22:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi WeatherWriter, I really think you need to look again at this draft as it just seems very subjective and something that doesn't really belong on Wikipedia in its current form. For example, in this edit summary you think 2023 is complete but yet you have failed to include the costliest tropical cyclone on record in the Southern Hemisphere. I also believe that Cyclones Freddy, Judy, Kevin, Storm Daniel as well as a whole load of other weather events that would meet your very subjective criteria of four yearly-based assessments if you did more digging. I feel that youāre onto something by identifying the important weather events each year, which probably belong in something like Weather of 1999, which will need to get created eventually. Jason Rees ( talk) 21:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.Instead of setting an arbitrary value of "four", it could be "several", with talk page discussions related to additional items or something like that. I think the list overall would be a good idea since the basic idea is a list, based on reliable sources, which events are cited the most for being the most important/notable/signficiant/deadly, ect... I would say even more important, the sources (the current 5 for 2023), aren't just a list with no info. The sources actually explain why each event is notable. For instance, only one of the seven mentioned Cyclone Mocha was one of the top events of the year. That said, five of the seven mentioned the 2023 Canadian wildfires as being a top event of the year.
The article List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
There doesn't seem to be anything that makes this grouping of tornadoes special, that they are also (among other means) observed by mobile radar is not a defining characteristic, and is in many cases sourced to the most basic sources (twitter/X, primary sources like NOAA).
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
09:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Fram ( talk) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Just letting you know that File:2024 vandalism of Stonehenge.png is actually under an Attribution license on their google drive, so I uploaded File:Vlcsnap at 0010-VIDEO 19062024 JustStopOil Stonehenge.png to Commons. - Sebbog13 ( talk) 21:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Another editor already removed the information you added to this article; they considered it a BLP violation and I agree with them. Please be much more careful with BLP information, and more discerning regarding sources. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 03:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The article
2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado and
Talk:2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado/GA1Ā for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
PCN02WPS --
PCN02WPS (
talk)
20:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The article
2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado for comments about the article, and
Talk:2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado/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
PCN02WPS --
PCN02WPS (
talk)
21:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
I hope you aren't disappointed by the FAC, no matter what ends up happening. You have created a resource that is already one of the best ones available online, no? And it's just one article out of thousands (if not many more!) I hope you got good experience out of working on it. Certain types of articles are easier to get featured, like the ones that have a lot more information. By writing the article, you also helped provide coverage for an older historical event, and you should be proud that you did that. Please don't feel defeated. I think you're a valuable contributor, and I hope that we can continue working together to make this the best damn weather encyclopedia that ever existed! ā« Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC) |
I didn't feel like cluttering the 2024 AHS talk further so I thought I'd post this here instead. To quote Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:
original materials that are close to an event. For weather, this would be direct expressions/consequences of a weather event. For a hurricane, this would include stuff like satellite imagery, reconnaissance aircraft data, wind/rain data from ground weather stations, and storm surge data from tide gauges. Other weather-related primary sources would be things like weather maps or model outputs.
provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, e.g. a NHC forecaster interpreting satellite images via the Dvorak technique to give an intensity estimate in a NHC advisory, or a NCDC storm event report that has summarised ground damage and linked it to a meteorological synopsis. In this vein, NHC advisories and reports would be secondary sources, provided there has been some sort of analysis done on the primary data.
As you can probably tell from the examples I listed above, NOAA sources would be primary or secondary depending on what exactly the source is about. Stuff like NHC TCRs would be secondary, but things like TAFB weather maps or NWS weather station raw data published by NOAA would be primary. Whether it would be good to cite a primary or secondary source would again depend on context: if an article on a location's climate needs a climograph, I wouldn't see any issue with citing NOAA climate tables (a primary source) to make that climograph. Meanwhile, if someone tried to add to Beryl's article that a 126-knot SFMR was recorded yesterday citing an archive of aircraft recon HDOBs, that'd be a situation where I'd ask for a secondary source e.g. a NHC discussion (where the forecaster may have tossed the value out due to being rain-contaminated/part of a mesovortex/etc.).
Whether a source is reliable (in the Wikipedia sense), meanwhile, is orthogonal to whether a source is primary and secondary. Primary sources can be reliable (e.g. rain gauge at a NWS station) or unreliable (measuring cylinder in someone's backyard). Similarly, secondary sources can be reliable (NHC) or unreliable (F13). Generally secondary sources are more reliable than primary sources since there's at least some level of analysis/quality control done in secondary sources, but whether that analysis is good or not depends on who/what's doing it. Hence why policy states Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense
.
These days I think it's safe to say I wouldn't prefer mainstream media as sources on niche or technical subjects. They tend to keep getting things wrong, e.g. not distinguishing between 10-/1-minute sustained winds and gusts. Especially after the recent aviation turbulence incidents where a descent rate of 2,000 ft/min is somehow newsworthy (though that's not really weather related).
Just my two cents - I think some people would like to see one more degree of separation from primary to secondary, but this is where I stand. ~Ā KN2731 { talk Ā· contribs} 13:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey, just so you know for the future, this:
isn't technically a bare URL. A bare URL would look like this:
Your post at ANI should have been about the WP:ELBODY guideline rather than Wikipedia:Bare URLs. If you encounter a problem like this in the future, then I suggest that you try the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard instead. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandalism of Stonehenge (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.GenevieveDEon ( talk) 08:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot from Hazbin Hotel Season 1 Episode 5 (Alastor).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your high quality work on Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 leading to your first run at FAC. I look forward to seeing it back there, hopefully with a better outcome. Keep up the good work, it is appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
1764 Woldegk tornado you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Dora the Axe-plorer --
Dora the Axe-plorer (
talk)
23:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
This may seem random, but I'd like to apologize for the inaccurate argument I made when we were discussing whether or not the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado should be included in the "Possible F5/EF5 tornadoes" section of the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. During the discussion, my final reasoning for being against the tornado's inclusion was "...it moved through forested areas along its ENTIRE journey, so it all came down to contextual evidence of the tornado being EF5, not from not hitting anything (Chapman EF4) or the question of whether EF5 winds may have occurred (Vilonia EF4)." However, while editing the section for EF3 tornado in Western Kentucky from the Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19ā27, 2024, I noticed that one of the DAT photos showed cycloidal scour marks were left in large farm fields. I decided to do a check of the terrain that the 2021 EF4 Western Kentucky tornado went over and found that the vast majority of it was over farm fields, especially along the beginning of the track, which made my argument invalid. I, therefore, would like to apologize for making a faulty argument, which made it harder to get a consensus for the discussion. I'm not sure if it would have swayed my argument to support the tornado's inclusion, but I still wished I would have checked first before giving my final answer. Chess Eric 19:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article
Battle of Kherson you nominated as a
good article has failed ; see
Talk:Battle of Kherson for reasons why
the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Amitchell125 --
Amitchell125 (
talk)
07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, you recently added an edit where you made a claim that 3 Jordanians were killed, with a citation by twitter accout "VisegrƔd 24". However, on the article for that account, it says that they post misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war, and thus it is not a reliable or good source to use and that claim has no source to back it up. Please remove it as I have already done so once. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 03:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that you
often edit without using an
edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in
your preferences. Thanks!
Stefen Towers among the rest!
Gab ā¢
Gruntwerk
06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.BilledMammal ( talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm considering writing a sort article for the Signpost about contributing to (English) Wikisource, which I've been doing on and off since this January. Since you're another Wikipedian who recently joined that project, I wondered if you would like to say a few words about your experiences getting started on Wikisource (learning curve, pros, cons, anything really). No worries if you don't want to. Cheers, Cremastra ( talk) 14:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
TylerBurden (
talk)
16:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as The Peopleās University for Palestine, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for 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. Josethewikier ( talk) 14:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey sorry I haven't participated in the discussion as much, I got bogged down with work and life stuff. So anyway, I'm a bit confused about what the current status is for EF2 tornadoes that don't hurt anyone. Are we just doing the "soft" case-by-case approach where we just discuss it when it happens, and reach a consensus for each individual instance? The discussion has become so long-winded and convoluted I can't really make heads or tails of where things currently stand. Can you give me a "dumbed down" summary of what the current agreement is when it comes to no-injury EF2s? TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 15:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 16:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
| Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Tornadoes of 2023 at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with GA and all the best, Mini apolis 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
Hi there WeatherWriter, I'm glad to be of assistance in helping you get a featured article.
After hitting Montgomery, the tornado struck Chisholm, Alabama, where it caused catastrophic damage. Thirty homes were completely swept away in Chisholm. All the fatalities from this tornado occurred in 15 homes within a 20-block radius.That is all the information about those exact deaths as well from Grazulis, U.S. Weather Bureau, and Rich Thomas.
So that's a lot right off the bat. I wonder if the FAC was perhaps a bit premature, but I don't want to tell you what not to do. Let me know if you have questions. ā« Hurricanehink ( talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The photo that keeps getting added to the Sulphur section is NOT a confirmed photo of the Sulphur tornado. There actually isn't a single source saying it is from Sulphur, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it is. The one you posted claims it was taken near the town of Byng, Oklahoma, and yet I found two more instances of the pic posted that same night, claiming to be from Ardmore, Oklahoma (shared below). If it was taken near Byng though, it would mean it is more likely a photo of the Holdenville EF3, as that town is closer to Byng than Sulphur. In any case, this all way too speculative for Wikipedia and we have no way of knowing where this photo was actually taken, and we shouldn't be having this issue to begin with, because we aren't supposed to pull random pics from social media that we cannot 100% verify. We can't just guess and hope we get it right, so stick with pics from the DAT or the NWS. We are going to get misattributed photos and false info published if we aren't more careful. Now if we find proof that this photo is from Sulphur, we can add it back, but for now it is a random unverifiable photo from social media that shouldn't have been added in the first place.
PROOF: 1.) https://twitter.com/dylantbrown/status/1784433337823621608 2.) https://twitter.com/JeffreyMHough1/status/1784555615013990792 3.) https://twitter.com/NeckerZak/status/1784421774563631487
TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 05:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
Thanks for uploading File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
You withdrew your RM (requested move) at Talk:List of tornado outbreaks by outbreak intensity score, but then you keep capping it. I've undone that. Let's discuss more if you don't see how MOS:CAPS applies here. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
And for a topic that's not yet likely to pass WP:Notability, you're sure playing it up. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
|
The Multiple Barnstar | |||||||
I've never done this before, so this template took way too long to get right. All I want to say is:
1. You are an amazing helper all-around. I've met some good people, some bad people, but you are definitely one of the friendliest. Without hesitation, you helped me heavily on 1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado, which did not go unnoticed. Thanks so much!Ā :) 2. You know the rules better than anyone else. I've seen it time and time again, where you will correct somebody's mistake (or mine), link them to a "WP:" and explain what happened. It's a very good way to connect with others without angering them, and I salute you for that. Thanks again! :D MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
Also to add a note on the Jarrell deletion discussion, everything that was mentioned under reasoning has been fixed and rewrote. Feel free to delete this portion of the message if you'd likeĀ :) MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, I just wanted to remind you about the FAC you asked me to help withĀ ;) ā« Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
You work so hard on your edits and I'm sure that you have made a change to the knowledge widely available by the public. <3 /plat
.allthefauna (
talk)
03:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi WeatherWriter, I see you started Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960ā1969) in September 2022, and last made some very minor edits in September 2023. As a Brit, this is not a subject I know anything about, but is there any reason this has not, or should not, be published? Best wishes - Arjayay ( talk) 10:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The format
parameter in citation templates such as {{
cite web}} refer to the File format of the work referred to by url; for example: DOC or XLS; displayed in parentheses after title.
They are not meant to encode information about the type of medium like a
press release (e.g.,
your edit here). Use the type
(or medium
) parameter for that information. ā
TheAustinMan(
Talk ā¬©
Edits)
16:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed your additions of the "Primary source inline" template in 2024 in climate change. Your explanation is that links to original studies "acts more as a self-published sources, not a secondary reliable source."
However, in cases of scientific studies, it's actually best to link directly to the study as a primary source rather than depend on a secondary source's interpretation; see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. This is why I think your primary/secondary distinction is misplaced. If, on the other hand, your actual concern is about the reliability of the source or study--that's why I try to always state the source in article text, to place the source in context.
Can you reconsider those templates? Thanks. ā RCraig09 ( talk) 17:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
(CONTENT)[1], with [1] being the primary source, it should be
(CONTENT)[1][2], with [1] being the current/primary/self-published sources and [2] being a secondary source to back up the primary source. That is why the "non-primary source needed" templates were added. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources(bolding my doing). Even if it is from a well regarded expert or expert organization, if the study in question is notable, someone is bound to talk about it in a secondary reliable source. I would say after a month after primary source publication, if a secondary reliable source isn't found, then I would honestly remove it as being not-notable for the content in the article, especially since all of the things I tag do fall under SPS. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
19 March: "The climate crisis is the defining challenge that humanity faces." āProf. Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, in State of the Climate 2023.[1]
5 February: a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences proposed adding a "Category 6" to the SaffirāSimpson hurricane wind scale to adequately convey storms' risk to the public, the researchers noting a number of storms have already achieved that intensity.[2]
References
almost all the entries I've made have been discovered by reading general news sources that quote scientific journals that they link." If that is true, then someone else says that the report is important; "someone else" being whatever general news source you found mentioning it. All I am asking is that if it is a self-published source, meaning if the author affiliation is the same as the website and/or publisher, then also tag along the news source citation. If it is from a peer-reviewed journal, no additional sources is needed. I think that summarizes all the points into a neat "too-long, didn't read" format. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 05:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Please IGNORE the | discussion linked here that I started because I did not know this at the time; but I started a discussion on the wrong file. Please direct any comments on the dead man walking tornado to the actual deletion discussion | linked here. And also, please ignore my struck out comments on that discussion. Apparently I didnāt know until just now that there were TWO pictures taken in the exact same spot, by the exact same person, and presumably by the exact same camera. Just at different times. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Thumbnail for Poison.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
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. Weāve only gotten down to 2020 (for completely listed) and if I recall, the entries only go back to 2019. Thereās still a lot more in IEM archives. Your help at expanding the list to mainspace ready format would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Lincoln, NE EF3 tornado.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
|
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:2023 Grindavik eruption.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
02:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
|
In case you had forgotten, there was a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_February_27#File:Poison_Song_Cover_Image.jpeg regarding using Hazbin Hotel video thumbnails as cover artworks in which the consensus was to not use them as cover artworks. You even acknowledged the consensus and restored the thumbnail over an actual Spotify cover artwork of a remix. It does not matter if you use image=, which is an alias of cover=, or that other editors restored the image to the infobox on the other articlesāsince you have these articles watchlisted and you know consensus disapproves, you should have reverted the editors doing so and pointed them to the consensus. @ Sergecross73: as an admin involved in that discussion. Ss 112 03:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
the songs do not have individual covers". By reverting my change, you restored content from an editor who directly claimed the image you restored was the "cover". So please, do not accuse me without getting your facts straight. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I also find it funny how you only messaged me and not the editor who added the image to the infobox in the first place, the IP editor who added the image back to the infobox on "Poison" hasn't edited in close to a month. There would be no point because they've probably moved to a different IP and wouldn't see it. But speaking of doing one's research, I don't think you did yours: I did message the user who restored the thumbnail to the infobox on the other three Hazbin Hotel song articles: see here. Ss 112 04:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
This whole mess about the current storm section seems to have started because you wanted to make sure things were properly cited. I have to applaud that effort, since that seems to be where the current consensus is, that there shouldnāt be external links, especially when we can easily cite things with an actual reference! So Iām sorry if things got heated, and perhaps I wasnāt the most level-headed. Tbh, thereās a heat wave where I am today, so I probably spent too much time today rushing to add to the discussions. So cheers to your efforts trying to make this website a better place. We need more people like you. Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 22:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandalism of Stonehenge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.GenevieveDEon ( talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to climate change, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipediaās norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 22:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi WeatherWriter, I really think you need to look again at this draft as it just seems very subjective and something that doesn't really belong on Wikipedia in its current form. For example, in this edit summary you think 2023 is complete but yet you have failed to include the costliest tropical cyclone on record in the Southern Hemisphere. I also believe that Cyclones Freddy, Judy, Kevin, Storm Daniel as well as a whole load of other weather events that would meet your very subjective criteria of four yearly-based assessments if you did more digging. I feel that youāre onto something by identifying the important weather events each year, which probably belong in something like Weather of 1999, which will need to get created eventually. Jason Rees ( talk) 21:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.Instead of setting an arbitrary value of "four", it could be "several", with talk page discussions related to additional items or something like that. I think the list overall would be a good idea since the basic idea is a list, based on reliable sources, which events are cited the most for being the most important/notable/signficiant/deadly, ect... I would say even more important, the sources (the current 5 for 2023), aren't just a list with no info. The sources actually explain why each event is notable. For instance, only one of the seven mentioned Cyclone Mocha was one of the top events of the year. That said, five of the seven mentioned the 2023 Canadian wildfires as being a top event of the year.
The article List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
There doesn't seem to be anything that makes this grouping of tornadoes special, that they are also (among other means) observed by mobile radar is not a defining characteristic, and is in many cases sourced to the most basic sources (twitter/X, primary sources like NOAA).
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
09:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Fram ( talk) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Just letting you know that File:2024 vandalism of Stonehenge.png is actually under an Attribution license on their google drive, so I uploaded File:Vlcsnap at 0010-VIDEO 19062024 JustStopOil Stonehenge.png to Commons. - Sebbog13 ( talk) 21:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Another editor already removed the information you added to this article; they considered it a BLP violation and I agree with them. Please be much more careful with BLP information, and more discerning regarding sources. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 03:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The article
2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado and
Talk:2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado/GA1Ā for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
PCN02WPS --
PCN02WPS (
talk)
20:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The article
2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado for comments about the article, and
Talk:2022 PembrokeāBlack Creek tornado/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
PCN02WPS --
PCN02WPS (
talk)
21:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
I hope you aren't disappointed by the FAC, no matter what ends up happening. You have created a resource that is already one of the best ones available online, no? And it's just one article out of thousands (if not many more!) I hope you got good experience out of working on it. Certain types of articles are easier to get featured, like the ones that have a lot more information. By writing the article, you also helped provide coverage for an older historical event, and you should be proud that you did that. Please don't feel defeated. I think you're a valuable contributor, and I hope that we can continue working together to make this the best damn weather encyclopedia that ever existed! ā« Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC) |
I didn't feel like cluttering the 2024 AHS talk further so I thought I'd post this here instead. To quote Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:
original materials that are close to an event. For weather, this would be direct expressions/consequences of a weather event. For a hurricane, this would include stuff like satellite imagery, reconnaissance aircraft data, wind/rain data from ground weather stations, and storm surge data from tide gauges. Other weather-related primary sources would be things like weather maps or model outputs.
provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, e.g. a NHC forecaster interpreting satellite images via the Dvorak technique to give an intensity estimate in a NHC advisory, or a NCDC storm event report that has summarised ground damage and linked it to a meteorological synopsis. In this vein, NHC advisories and reports would be secondary sources, provided there has been some sort of analysis done on the primary data.
As you can probably tell from the examples I listed above, NOAA sources would be primary or secondary depending on what exactly the source is about. Stuff like NHC TCRs would be secondary, but things like TAFB weather maps or NWS weather station raw data published by NOAA would be primary. Whether it would be good to cite a primary or secondary source would again depend on context: if an article on a location's climate needs a climograph, I wouldn't see any issue with citing NOAA climate tables (a primary source) to make that climograph. Meanwhile, if someone tried to add to Beryl's article that a 126-knot SFMR was recorded yesterday citing an archive of aircraft recon HDOBs, that'd be a situation where I'd ask for a secondary source e.g. a NHC discussion (where the forecaster may have tossed the value out due to being rain-contaminated/part of a mesovortex/etc.).
Whether a source is reliable (in the Wikipedia sense), meanwhile, is orthogonal to whether a source is primary and secondary. Primary sources can be reliable (e.g. rain gauge at a NWS station) or unreliable (measuring cylinder in someone's backyard). Similarly, secondary sources can be reliable (NHC) or unreliable (F13). Generally secondary sources are more reliable than primary sources since there's at least some level of analysis/quality control done in secondary sources, but whether that analysis is good or not depends on who/what's doing it. Hence why policy states Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense
.
These days I think it's safe to say I wouldn't prefer mainstream media as sources on niche or technical subjects. They tend to keep getting things wrong, e.g. not distinguishing between 10-/1-minute sustained winds and gusts. Especially after the recent aviation turbulence incidents where a descent rate of 2,000 ft/min is somehow newsworthy (though that's not really weather related).
Just my two cents - I think some people would like to see one more degree of separation from primary to secondary, but this is where I stand. ~Ā KN2731 { talk Ā· contribs} 13:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey, just so you know for the future, this:
isn't technically a bare URL. A bare URL would look like this:
Your post at ANI should have been about the WP:ELBODY guideline rather than Wikipedia:Bare URLs. If you encounter a problem like this in the future, then I suggest that you try the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard instead. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandalism of Stonehenge (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.GenevieveDEon ( talk) 08:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot from Hazbin Hotel Season 1 Episode 5 (Alastor).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your high quality work on Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 leading to your first run at FAC. I look forward to seeing it back there, hopefully with a better outcome. Keep up the good work, it is appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've
begun reviewing the article
1764 Woldegk tornado you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
ChristieBot, on behalf of
Dora the Axe-plorer --
Dora the Axe-plorer (
talk)
23:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
This may seem random, but I'd like to apologize for the inaccurate argument I made when we were discussing whether or not the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado should be included in the "Possible F5/EF5 tornadoes" section of the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. During the discussion, my final reasoning for being against the tornado's inclusion was "...it moved through forested areas along its ENTIRE journey, so it all came down to contextual evidence of the tornado being EF5, not from not hitting anything (Chapman EF4) or the question of whether EF5 winds may have occurred (Vilonia EF4)." However, while editing the section for EF3 tornado in Western Kentucky from the Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19ā27, 2024, I noticed that one of the DAT photos showed cycloidal scour marks were left in large farm fields. I decided to do a check of the terrain that the 2021 EF4 Western Kentucky tornado went over and found that the vast majority of it was over farm fields, especially along the beginning of the track, which made my argument invalid. I, therefore, would like to apologize for making a faulty argument, which made it harder to get a consensus for the discussion. I'm not sure if it would have swayed my argument to support the tornado's inclusion, but I still wished I would have checked first before giving my final answer. Chess Eric 19:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)