RandomInfinity17

I can tell when you template me and don't put any thought in your message. If you want to alert me to something, please actually link the edit(s) in question (if applicable), taking time writing the message in your owns words, and be respectful. Thanks! - RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome RandomInfinity17!

Hello RandomInfinity17. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Paine Ellsworth, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost   Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

A Tranks

Thanks for the track, i' am no use the WTPC for the use in Android :( and no have Internet in my PC and me use te Paint, no see, all tracks it (Unknown) i'am me year see the colour ok i'an use two account (Cubano 153 and Unar64) OK, sorry for me english i'am help Unar64P (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I plan to do all the other windstorm tracks soon. RandomInfinity17 (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Tracks

My date of image it a weather-app seevice. in the app it a wind-weather app, you need download the aplicatation, thanks for the other(s) track(s) https://www.windy.com/ it the link of the Weather Service, All the Storm Liv it no conffirmed european windstorm, in the Groap of the Fub, (Bettina, Elke, Iris and Liv) liv a reppoet of the storm, thanks of the other tracks. Unar64P (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Invete

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:2022–23_Caribean_Storm Season/ my page Unar64P (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

searsh the page please Unar64P (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Your revert on 2022 Atlantic hurricane season

Hello RandomInfinity17,

You have reverted my edit about storm Nicole on 2022 Atlantic hurricane season, with the edit summary "Wikipedia doesn't do forecasts (WP:CRYSTALBALL)". Of course we don't do forecasts. We do, however, mention forecasts, if they are relevant. The "Forecast maps" in the article are one example. I don't think we need individual forecasts for every single storm. This one may be a good exception though, since it is relevant for the planned Artemis I launch. The storm is mentioned in that article, and the forecast is cited there. The storm's unusual nature is relevant. Renerpho (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

European Windstorm

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I saw your edit earlier removing the automatic updating of the link to the current European Windstorm list and have partially reverted it. Basically the coding needed to reflect that the season is 6-monthly like the Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons. Its simple when you know how :) Happy New Year.Jason Rees (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you know how to create Global tracks for the Tropical Cyclones in 2023 article

Hello, RandomInfinity17. I have a small question. Do you know how to create those global track images for the Tropical Cyclones in XXXX articles? I think the user (User:Supportstorm) been kind of busy of late, and that is why they haven't created the image as of yet. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably not because I don't have all of the track data for all the storms. Also, I don't want to pressure Superstorm so don't feel pressured about it. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@RandomInfinity17 Sorry for the late response, but okay just checking if you could do it, cheers :). Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Costliest TCs

Hey, I saw your infobox on the costliest TCs and wanted to suggest that you combine the SHEM lists into SIO and SPAC, since the Australian list will just generally contain TCs that either moved in or our of the basin eg: Freddy/Gabrielle. I also wanted to point you in the direction of the following TCs for the SPAC which almost certainly will need to be listed. Ofa, Val, Gita, Gabrielle, Yasi, Veena, Larry/Monica. (Ie: Systems that impact multiple countries) Also you might want to reach out to @Hurricanehink: who has done some work on this previously as he maybe able to point you in the right direction of some more TCs. Jason Rees (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I created that article specifically for the fact that there is not much information of the costliest tropical cyclones outside the Northern Hemisphere basins. I base the damage tolls for a cyclone based on how much damage the cyclone did in basin. Basically, if a cyclone caused $560 million in damages in the SPAC basin and $2.5 billion in the AUS basin (just hypotheticals), I would list the cyclone as having done $2.5 billion in the Australian region list and $560 million in the South Pacific. Hope this makes sense. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not complaining about you making the list as I personally welcome it but just wanted to reach out, be friendly, share knowledge, make a couple of suggestions and save you a few hours of research, since outside of the Northern Hemisphere the basins are not as well defined as we would like. You will also need to be careful when trying to split damage totals into basins, since systems that impact the Solomon Islands can count for both the SPAC and Australian regions.Jason Rees (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Tornado outbreak of March 31, 2023

On 3 April 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tornado outbreak of March 31, 2023, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Hurricane Fiona, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. If you wish to have the infobox changed to read "weather event" rather than "tropical cyclone (which indeed it was) I would suggest that you (as well as Iseriously) take it up on the article talk page. Thank you.   Aloha27  talk  17:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

While I was just trying to correct Fiona's damage toll (which is still wrong but whatever), I believe that you are mistaken. Template:Infobox weather event is currently in the process of replacing Template:Infobox tropical cyclone (as started in this disscussion, further readings: 1, 2, 3, 4). Your edit here about Fiona being a tropical cyclone so weather event isn't need is irrelevant as Fiona, by definition, is a weather event. While I'll do believe this was in good faith, we are trying to move past the tropical cyclone infobox and this is an unnecessary delay. Infinity (talk - contributions) 18:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aloha27: A discussion on the talkpage is not needed because we already had an RfC on the matter which decided to replace and deprecate the TC infobox and other various infoboxes. Noah^Talk 20:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Yep. I saw that. I don't mind telling you that particular RfC was some of the finest WP:BLUDGEONING that I've seen during my 16+ years editing the project. Were I making the call, instead of closing, I would've at least gotten more input for no consensus. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  22:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Delinking

Any specific reason why you removed the links to meteorology terms in Template:Infobox weather event/History? Chlod (say hi!) 22:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought that linking the terms in the side bar looked weird (especially when between two unlinked terms) and didn't contrast well with the white background when bolded. I know it's not that good of a reason but that's why I did it.

Unrelated, but I couldn't find a way to set the type/category of infobox weather event to potential tropical cyclone on my subpage. If you could help me, that would be great. Infinity (talk - contributions) 23:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Though the links in the infobox may appear weird, this is mostly for the reader's benefit, as it is possible that not all of them know what "extratropical" means. Since this is merely a stylistic preference, there shoud be a better reason as to why those links shouldn't be there.

As for your latter point, it seems the NWS infobox didn't support potential TCs. You can now add a |category= parameter to override the category. The reason why it didn't have that parameter in the first place was to avoid editors from supplying the category, which would be redundant as it's automatically calculated. I've thought of a solution for that just now; feel free to use the parameter as you wish. Chlod (say hi!) 01:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you can revert my edit there. Infinity (talk - contributions) 21:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Very Strong La Nina

Very Strong La Nina simply doesn't exist. La Nina has never gotten strong enough for the creation of a very strong category. You can see this here. Noah^Talk 23:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I saw "very strong El Niño" and thought you forgot the La Niña counterpart. Infinity (talk - contributions) 23:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment toward me

Hey, I know you are getting annoyed at me, but I hate to say it. Get used to it. It isn't my job to add sources to everything. The editor who changes the numbers should add a new source. I've taken so much flack for not discussing with editors enough & there is tons of unsourced lists in WP:Weather things. I'm working through tornado articles and I don't have the time to clean up after every editor who seems to think not adding a source after changing a death toll or damage total is ok. I've opened discussions and pinged some of those editors who don't add sources and they still don't. So as much as you don't like it, I'm going to keep creating discussions (as I was just mentioned to at an edit warring noticeboard) and citation needed templating every time these editors forget to add a dang source when they change numbers. If I didn't know better, I would take them to AN for failing to source hundreds of edits even after being mentioned that they have to add citations. Sorry, but I've taken too much flack for not communicating with editors, so if you don't like the discussion spam or citation needed spam, get through to the handful of editors who refuse to add citations because I sure can't. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. It's annoying to me and I'm not the only who shares my opinion, but fine. What I want to ask now is are you fine? Like, there are some edits that I question. Like here, I don't get why you didn't think it was vandalism, it clearly was. Also, on two cases on Tropical cyclones of 2023 and 2023 Pacific typhoon season, you called Typhoon Mawar a cyclone. You did this multiple times and not just in the title, so how did you not notice? Just wondering what's going on. Infinity (talk - contributions) 01:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This edit occurred while a vandalism edit (someone wanting to remove the DAT from a tornado article) was being thrown around in an edit war noticeboard. Obviously it was vandalism, but since I had a simultaneous vandalism-related 3RR "violation" being discussed at a noticeboard, no way was I going to revert it and risk insta block. The noticeboard was declined by the admin, but it's honestly frustrating to me that basically every mistake I make is basically a free-ticket to a noticeboard. I stayed out of everyone way and made articles like List of United States tornadoes in 1946, go weeks without reverting someone, then get taken to a noticeboard. I've been told by editors that I start too many discussion (admin talk page) and likewise, that I start too little (noticeboard yesterday). I am hot-headed at times and I do get somewhat smart aleck at times. But, with the shear amount of times I've been at a noticeboard, been lied to by editors, and have had admins just point blank tell me to not interact with certain editors, I cannot be hot-headed. I'm truly at the point of "Mistake = noticeboard or admin talk page". Yeah, I'm annoying and I'm truly sorry for being annoying. Never my intention. To me though, I almost feel like I had to be that annoying "stick to the book" kind of editor since deviating from it seems to wind me up at a noticeboard. I've lost count, but I've probably been taken to a noticeboard at least 20 times in 2 years. So again, I truly apologize for being the annoying editor. I do plan to try to look for sources before adding a citation needed template. But, some of them honestly do get changed without sources being added or updated and that is a problem that needs to be worked out. I'm not sure the best way to help fix that issue though. Do you have thoughts on that? Elijahandskip (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Here's why you're always getting hauled to a noticeboard, and here's how to avoid it in the future. You may not want to see me, but I felt like I had to give the following pieces of advice that are going to be critical for your continued success on Wikipedia, so please hear me out and acknowledge reading each and every point in full:

• You have a tendency to assume anyone who takes issue with you or something of yours is just out to get you, with the title of this very section being a clear example. Casting aspersions like this is at best the pot calling the kettle black and at worst simply personal attacks. Stop, think, think twice, and think three times before you make such statements. It has a chilling effect on others and is most certainly considered uncivil. I very strongly recommend that you ask another editor before you even implicitly accuse anyone of misbehavior.
  • Indeed, others are not just trying to make your life hard when they raise a concern with you. The expectation is that you listen to them accordingly, as I expect here.
• Your talk page comments like the ones in this section are confrontational in tone ("Get used to it"–totally unnecessary and inflammatory) and are often too verbose. Being frustrated is not an excuse–grinding your axe on the community will chafe, bruise, lacerate, and cut them, and will do no favors. Furthermore, outright asking folks not to interact with you will not get you very far; your talk page belongs to the community and not you. You should feel free to ask another editor (strongly suggested to be a very experienced one, preferably an admin specializing in this) how to improve on this.
• The issue the community has with your approach to content disputes is that you continue reverting when you reasonably should know well it is disputed, i.e. it does not have consensus, and take a combative approach in any ensuing discussion. You seem to view discussion as an always or never, all or nothing thing. This is not the case. There is a WP:SILENTCONSENSUS for most edits on condition that you reasonably believe that your content is not in dispute and so discussions for clearly undisputed edits or proposed edits are unnecessary and wasteful (as you've seen). However, as soon as you know it to be in dispute, you need to go to the talk page unless one of the standard exceptions (WP:3RRE) apply; if in doubt, just go to the talk page. From this I extremely strongly recommend a combination of 1RR and 0RR rules: you may revert someone else's edit once to challenge it as in BRD unless that edit is itself a revert, in which case you go to the talk page without any revert. If ever in doubt, ask another experienced editor in a neutral fashion (so as to not canvass).
• Going back to your comments, you wikilawyer a bit much, like you did over the applicability of BRD at Talk:Climate change#Is a NOAA Chief Scientist considered an expert. BRD is very simple: never restore content that you know to be disputed. Another example was the discussion over your tbans in your second archive. Slow down and think of why certain policies exist. Editing Wikipedia requires having WP:CLUE.
• You probably know this by now, but WP:RFCBEFORE should always be followed. RfC's opened before smaller scale dispute resolution has been tried has the effect of crying wolf and wasting community resources better used for truly intractable disputes.

Given all this, and how most of the points can be addressed by asking for advice, I think what you need is a WP:MENTOR. I am too busy in real life to be one, but that would be the best way to get you back on track.

We are all here for you; however, the community's patience is limited. I was this close to writing this as an ANI post in light of your decision to edit war on the climate change article after I reported you to AN3 and the closing admin suggested you attempt discussion on the talk page rather than in edit summaries (i.e. do not try to brute-force search a compromise by repeatedly submitting different versions).

Please please take the time to carefully read this and reply that you understand it, because the next step if you continue any of these behaviors would be ANI and sanctions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I read all the posts fully and one question arose that are fairly significant I believe. (1) You said I should seek advice from an experience editor/admin on how to deal with my hot-headedness. To be 100% honest, I did and the mentor abandoned me after one mistake while I got contribution stalked for months. This was back in 2020–21 and since then, I was always defensive due to the constant knowledge of a contribution stalker that made it very clear I should not edit Wikipedia or have any chance to edit Wikipedia. My mentor (an admin) told me to not interact with them as they did have an axe to grind and I happen to be in their way. I have done my best to avoid community problems for long periods of time (example creating List of United States tornadoes in 1946). But for instance, any and every mistake I make is always being used against me, no matter if I went weeks to months without an error. A mentor is what I need, but after my former mentor and contribution stalker I’m terrified that I could go 3-4+ months without making an error, make one error and earn myself that perm block over all my previous mistakes months ago. What you did in the noticeboard recently actually showed that. You didn’t dive into the 3RR edits to actually look at them. Two were real, but one was an honest exception to the rule, aka reverting a troll. That is the stage I feel I’m in now. Any mistake on the outside, whether it is an actual mistake or just appears to be one, is instant noticeboard. Anyway, with all of that ranting done (a bad habit I have), I think trying WP:MENTOR is my best chance. Hopefully I don’t earn a new mentor who abandons me (fingers crossed). I’ll be out of the public eye for a while doing some tornado article cleanup work. Hopefully the sock-master that follows myself and USM around doesn’t cause me to get hot-headed. If a mentor is willing to take me on ad a mentee, I believe that will help prevent that. First thing in the morning (since it is late for me), I will check out WP:MENTOR. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Complete side note, WP:BRD need to spell that situation on the climate stuff out better since you seem to indicate that one editor can dispute a silent consensus without actually participating in the discussion (which gained the silent consensus) prior to reverting. In my mind, that would be the “bold” edit since there was a silent consensus formed in a discussion, but you’re saying that the revert is in fact not the “bold” edit. Maybe a policy discussion to explain that in WP:BRD or WP:SILENCE would help some. But, that’s a future me goal after staying out of everyone’s way for a while. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: I'm sorry it ended that way, but you need to try again and this time be considerate of the mentor's time and energy. I was mentored by 28bytes (talk · contribs) early in my active editing career (not suggesting him necessarily, but giving myself as an example) and I was always judicious with the questions I asked. Mentors do not absolve you of your responsibility to edit constructively and without disruption, so it's still you who has to make in-the-moment judgement calls, after all.

The community has always been receptive to mistakes, but not when they become both disruptive and repeated (i.e. a pattern). You can't avoid these problems by simple content creation or editing; while these are best for editors like yourself who struggle with dispute resolution and policies, you can't always avoid disputes.

As for the 3RR situation I did not in fact link your reversion of the troll edit. But that's besides the point. When you have accumulated such an extensive record of edit warring and what not, arguing over minute details sadly won't do much for you. It might've avoided a block in this case, but the admin reminded you that 3RR isn't the definition of edit warring.

By the same token, I don't really buy your explanation of the climate change article situation but that detail matters little in the grand scheme of things. It appears that you were the first to introduce the content in question. Even if I give you that you did not in fact violate the letter of BRD, it would be gaming the system for you to say that this approach isn't at all problematic. This would have violated the 1RR and 0RR suggestion I made above had they already been in effect.

If you’re afraid of violating policies further, what I suggested is nearly a foolproof way to do so as long as you exercise reasonable caution and don’t take what I said as an entitlement to do anything.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I greatly appreciate all the advice you gave to me. Hopefully I don’t annoy anyone else with the amount of discussions I start since everyone recently has told me I need to start more discussions and want to participate in more discussions to avoid conflicts. Basically, don’t revert anyone and at the first smell of conflict (aka being reverted), start a discussion immediately. That is the easiest way to avoid conflicts. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: For situations where you are not already aware of others actively disputing your edits, such as when you want to propose something first, a tip to avoid being accused of making unnecessary discussions is to search talk page archives for previous consensus, and to ask whether there was a preexisting consensus if you can’t find it, unless the situation is so obviously new that there wouldn’t have been discussion before, in which case you should still try to make the decision with policy first and if policy is not conclusive, only then open a discussion (example: Talk:Miss America#Separate section for the scandal, where I cited policy grounds for either way).—Jasper Deng (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on March 2015 North American winter storm

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page March 2015 North American winter storm, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of costliest tropical cyclones

The article List of costliest tropical cyclones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

List fails #7 of WP:DEL-REASON. Per this RfC community consensus, lists regarding the monetary “rank” (costliest lists) need to have a secondary reliable source stating the list. This article does not contain a reliable secondary source stating the list (what is costlier than what), but rather a collection of NOAA and Aon reports which the article lists in a descending order. This exact situation for tornadoes was classified more along the lines of original research per that community RfC.

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a head's up

Just wanted to let you know this edit was reverting a SOCK of Andrew5. IP wasn't blocked as at the time of their initial SPI, the admin said blocking wasn't going to help and just wanted to PP anything they were interested in. The sock-master is easy to spot, with a clear WP:DUCK confirmation if baseball and weather edits occur. Should I have put an edit summary saying it was a SOCK reversion, yes. But, either way, I would like to ask for you to re-revert the edit, since you are technically supporting a reversion done by a disruptive editor (sock-master). Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for taking my suggestions and expanding on your draft so you could publish a vital article! I thereby award you the Original Barnstar. There are a lot of topics that need to be explored in detail on Wikipedia, but thanks to your work, the October 2022 Southern Ocean cyclone is not one of them! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Floods of 2022

Hello, RandomInfinity17. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Floods of 2022".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

PD-NWS Violations Update #2 (Key To Read Third Section)

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an new update (2nd update) to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

On the Commons, an RFC discussion is taking place to figure out how to manage the template. No "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred, so nothing has changed. That is not a surprise as the RFC is still ongoing.

What is new?

• The entire Template:PD-NWS has been placed inside a "License Review" template, which is viewable via the link aforementioned.
• Most of the photographs which were uploaded to the Commons originally under the PD-NWS template (approximately 1,500) have been reviewed. Out of those ~1,500 images, only about 150 are requiring additional looks. Most images have been verified as free-to-use and switched to a respective, valid template.
• As of this moment, approximately 50 photos have been nominated for deletion (results pending).
• A handful of images have been deleted (either confirmed copyrighted or under the Commons precautionary principle.
• One image has been kept following a deletion request under the PD-NWS template.

How to deal with new photos?

Given all of this, you might be wondering how the heck you use weather photos while creating articles? Well, here is what you can do!

• If the photo was made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (excluding NWS), You can upload it under the PD-NOAA template via {{PD-NOAA}}.
• If the photo was made by the National Weather Service (NOT Third Party), you can upload it using the new PD-NWS-employee template via {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}}.
  • If the photo originates on the Damage Assessment Toolkit, you can upload it using the PD-DAT template via {{PD-DAT}}.
• If the photo is from a U.S. NEXRAD radar, you can upload it using the PD-NEXRAD template via via {{PD-NEXRAD}}.

What about third-party photos?

In the case of third-party photos...i.e. ones not taken by the National Weather Service themselves...there is an option which was discussed and confirmed to be valid from an English Wikipedia Administrator.

• KEY: Third party images of tornadoes & weather-related content can potentially be uploaded via Wikipedia's Non-Free Content Guidelines!
• Experiments/testing has been done already! In fact, I bet you couldn't tell the difference, but the tornado photograph used at the top of the 2011 Joplin tornado was already switched to a Non-Free File (NFF)! Check it out: File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg! That photo's description can also be used as a template for future third-party tornado photographs uploaded to Wikipedia...with their respective information replaced.
• NFFs can be uploaded to multiple articles as well!
• The absolute key aspect of NFFs is that they relate to the article and are not decoration. For example with the Joplin tornado, the photograph: (1) shows the size of the tornado, (2) shows the "wall of darkness", which was described by witnesses, (3) shows a historic, non-repeatable event of the deadliest tornado in modern U.S. history. The exact reasoning does not have to be extremely specific as Wikipedia's NFF guidelines "is one of the most generous in the world" (words of Rlandmann (not pinged), the administrator reviewing all the PD-NWS template images).
• Tornado photographs will almost certainly qualify under the NFF guidelines, especially for tornadoes with standalone articles or standalone sections.
• NFFs cannot be used when a free-photograph is available, no matter the quality, unless the section is about that specific photograph. For example, the photograph used at the top of the 2013 Moore tornado article is confirmed to be free-to-use, therefore, no NFFs of that tornado can be uploaded on Wikipedia. However, the "Dead Man Walking" photograph could almost certainly be uploaded as an NFF to the 1997 Jarrell tornado article as that photograph is the topic of a section in the article.
• NFFs currently on Wikipedia can and should be placed in this category: Category:Non-free pictures of tornadoes.

Update Closing

Hopefully all of that information kept you informed on the Commons copyright discussion process and how you can still create the best articles possible! If you have a question about something mentioned above, reply back and I will do my best to answer it! Also, ping me in the process to ensure I see it! Have a good day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1966 Air New Zealand DC-8 crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First Officer. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yeti Airlines Flight 691 before crashing.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yeti Airlines Flight 691 before crashing.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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)